It's a real bugaboo these last twelve years.
Oh, it was a "thing" for the previous thirty years, but one criminal act in 2001 elevated it beyond reason. Now, I'm not trying to make light of the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the corner of the Pentagon, or the plane that went down in a field in Pennsylvania, but I am trying to give them some perspective.
So, let's analyze the word "terrorism."
First, there's the obvious terror. It's a good word, and describes intense fear. In fact, the dictionary definition is: a state of intense fear. That's pretty self-explanatory. You feel terror when you think someone has broken into your house if you have no means of self-defense, if you're on a water-borne or air-borne vessel that is no longer being borne by its medium, if you suddenly find yourself falling from a tall building or a cliff, if you're being attacked by a wild, large, angry animal. In general, it is a feeling that assails us when we are in situations that threaten our lives over which we have no control.
Now, let's look at "-ism." John Lennon had something to say about "-isms." In fact, he said he didn't believe in them. So, what is an "-ism?" Well, according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, an -ism is any distinctive doctrine or practice. Consider Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Vegetarianism, Lesbianism, Hinduism, Dudeism, Baptism, Patriotism, Pessimism, Racism, Optimism, Sexism, Ageism, Classism, Liberalism, Conservatism.....So, what you're saying is that Terrorism is a distinctive doctrine or practice of terror.
Now let's look at those people defined as "terrorists" throughout the years. Let me give you a hint: they do not all belong to the same religion, they do not all practice their terror the same way....so there is no distinctive doctrine, and there is no distinctive practice. Timothy McVey, who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal building, destroying a day-care center and killing more than 150 people (many of whom were children) in the process, was defined as a terrorist. By the same token, so were the perpetrators of the destruction of the World Trade Center, so were the numerous Arabs and Cubans who hijacked airplanes throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and so was the man who destroyed the TWA flight over Scotland more than twenty years ago.
Now, a lack of fitting the specs to be a real "-ism" aside, there's a much more important consideration.
When you call someone a terrorist, when you call an act terrorism, because of the connotations of the words, you give those people and that act power. You are saying to those people that they are important enough to have made you angry and afraid. Fear makes people controllable. So what you've done by giving this title to these people is handed them your reins.
Why can't we just call them crimes and criminals? These words are just as true, but do not have the same charged connotations. People fear a terrorist, but they look down on criminals. So why would you rather be afraid of someone who had tried to get you to fear them? You're playing right into their hands! Sure, let's catch the criminals, but let's view them as the criminals that they are. Murderers and vandals, but not terrorists. The title is too good for them.
